Not having contractions.

[TheOtherTeacher]

Current TEFL teacher.

I find lower level students usually don't use contractions. Higher level students often do.

But since lower level students don't often write erotic fiction in English, either AI or just Google translate.

 

[NotWise]

Back to the real topic, though. If the woman isn't having contractions or the contractions aren't strong and regular, then giving her an orgasm might get things going. Heck, even nipple stimulation works.

 

[MrHereWriting]

Read a story the other day that made me question if it was bot generated. It was all 'you are', 'they are', 'we are' and quite a few more where contractions would be quite normal. I forget what all the other instances were, but there were enough to make reading clumsy. But there were others like can't and don't, so I dropped the Bot though and even ESL, or other typical possibilities.

Can anyone see a possible reason?

There's no rule that you have to use contractions just because you can.

I'd have to go back and read my works, but I'm pretty sure 99.9% of the time I only use contractions in dialogue.

 

[Britva415]

Nathan Detroit, is that you?

 

[XerXesXu]

There's no rule that you have to use contractions just because you can.

I'd have to go back and read my works, but I'm pretty sure 99.9% of the time I only use contractions in dialogue.

By preference, I write in 3P omniscient. I don't use contractions in narration; it lends unwanted personality to the narrator.

The snippet above #8 is narrated in 1P POV, the whole purpose of which is to imbue the narrator with a character's personality; the use of contractions is a useful way to do that.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I looked up the story in question. I think any of the quotes given above could be defensible on their own, but the story as a whole just has a really flat voice, both in dialogue and narration. It doesn't feel like AI to me, just the way some people write when they don't have an ear for dialogue or narrative voice.

 

[MrHereWriting]

By preference, I write in 3P omniscient. I don't use contractions in narration; it lends unwanted personality to the narrator.

The snippet above #8 is narrated in 1P POV, the whole purpose of which is to imbue the narrator with a character's personality; the use of contractions is a useful way to do that.

There's a lot of useful things you can do in first person, doesn't mean you have to do them.

 

[Erozetta]

I used to write this way because I used to talk this way. I was pretty stringent on grammar rules as a kid and was awkward as fuck talking to people because people didn't talk to me. I didn't have a grasp on the idea of conversation. I spoke at people instead of to them because that's how adults spoke to me. It took years for my writing to become more natural and conversational with contractions because I was afraid of messing up "the rules".

But, eventually, people talked to me, conversed with me, and I picked up on more natural speech patterns. Those translated over to my writing, but I still catch myself at times writing a very rigid narrator who doesn't use contractions, particularly when they need/want to be taken seriously.

But I mostly don't give a shit about the rules now.

Tl;dr I spoke and wrote like a robot until I was a teenager because I thought that was "proper". Didn't know I was being a weirdo.

This writer may not be very well socialized and may not realize what they are doing.

 

[ronde]

I tend to use contractions in normal dialogue because that's how people usually speak. The exception would be when the speaker wants to emphasize something like a command or a desire. I would have drill sergeant say, "You will..." instead of "You'll". I would have the woman say, "I do not want to do that", instead of "I don't want to do that."

In third person, I tend to vacillate between both because I write the narrator as using a conversational style. If I want to emphasize something I won't use conractions.

 

[Gamblnluck]

ESL seems like a good possibility. Or maybe someone just had a teacher along the way who had a bugaboo about contractions.

I had teachers in school that hated the use of contractions except in dialog. I've paid attention to my own speech. I don't use contractions all the time there either, especially if I am emphasizing something. Some words are almost always contracted in some parts of the country. "It's" seems to be one in the south (LA anyway) most often. But there is a big difference between your Mom saying "I wouldn't do that". and "I would not do that."

 

[Rob_Royale]

It could be a computer translation of something written in a different language.

 

[Bramblethorn]

It could be a computer translation of something written in a different language.

If it were just the contractions, yeah, but there are other stylistic issues that don't feel like a computer's doing. The whole thing is like this:

Of course, asshole dropped Cade off right on time.

I opened the door, dragged him in and gave him a big hug.

It felt like I was hugging a solid piece of rock. Physical therapy was helping get his muscles back.

'Cade it is so good to see you! Let's get you settled in your old room.'

'Mom, it's good being back. I wish I lived with you always.'

...

'Oh, where are we going?'

He was embarrassed to tell me.

'Mom, Justine and I are going out for a bite. Then we want to hang out here if it is OK with you.'

I was so disappointed.

He noticed.

'Mom, I am sorry. We made these plans a week ago based on Dad's schedule. Then Dad changed the plan because of her.'

Paragraph breaks almost every sentence. Minor grammatical glitches that I wouldn't expect from computer-generated text. To me it just feels like a human who has room for improvement.

 

[TheOtherTeacher]

Reads to me like a translation.

Asshole is a person, or at least their name in this story. An AI would realise and give a capital A. But because it's a translation, they have translated as a body part.

 

[StillStunned]

I don't know what I'd do if I were editing something like that. It isn't an error, but I might point it out and let the author make the style decision. It's probably a good thing that I'm not an editor.

I've edited a few stories here and each time I've had to point out that the writer wasn't consistent in their use of contractions. And not just between narration and dialogue, but even within a single sentence. It seems to be a blind spot for many writers.

If you use contractions, be consistent. You can skip them if you want to add emphasis, or to imply posh/stilted/accented speech. But once you start using them, use them throughout.

The only ones I'd ever avoid - and this is my opinion as a professional editor - are "who're" (because it looks too similar to "whore") and by extension "who've".

 

[TheLobster]

The only ones I'd ever avoid - and this is my opinion as a professional editor - are "who're" (because it looks too similar to "whore") and by extension "who've".

Good to hear that in your professional opinion, it’s perfectly okay to always use the very posh and sophisticated “whomst’d’ve”.

 

[Erozetta]

I've edited a few stories here and each time I've had to point out that the writer wasn't consistent in their use of contractions. And not just between narration and dialogue, but even within a single sentence. It seems to be a blind spot for many writers.

If you use contractions, be consistent. You can skip them if you want to add emphasis, or to imply posh/stilted/accented speech. But once you start using them, use them throughout.

The only ones I'd ever avoid - and this is my opinion as a professional editor - are "who're" (because it looks too similar to "whore") and by extension "who've".

I find that, since I don't always speak one way or the other, mixing using contractions not using them reads much more natural than only using one or the other. This might not be proper, but it's also one of those "rules that are simply meant to be broken" in my opinion.

 

[StillStunned]

Good to hear that in your professional opinion, it’s perfectly okay to always use the very posh and sophisticated “whomst’d’ve”.

I find that, since I don't always speak one way or the other, mixing using contractions not using them reads much more natural than only using one or the other. This might not be proper, but it's also one of those "rules that are simply meant to be broken" in my opinion.

Rule no. 1 of editing: Unless the writer is deliberately trying to achieve some effect, the reader's experience always comes first. Inconsistencies are a distraction, and so is anything that's unnecessarily convoluted.

 

[Erozetta]

Rule no. 1 of editing: Unless the writer is deliberately trying to achieve some effect, the reader's experience always comes first. Inconsistencies are a distraction, and so is anything that's unnecessarily convoluted.

Well, that's kind of the thing, though. As a reader, I would find it more distracting if everyone either always used contractions or if they never did. It would feel boxy to me, unnatural.

 

[StillStunned]

Well, that's kind of the thing, though. As a reader, I would find it more distracting if everyone either always used contractions or if they never did. It would feel boxy to me, unnatural.

But writing is abstract. If you're using contractions everywhere, and then all of a sudden you don't, the reader is likely to assume that you're making a distinction for emphasis. Or at least wonder whether you're trying to add an emphasis. It's a tiny thing, but it risks breaking the reader's immersion.

 

[TheLobster]

I freely expand or contract compounds based mainly on the desired pace and cadence of the text. I might use more contractions in close 3PoV narration if it suits the character, but I do actually like to sometimes employ the full form for subtle emphasis.

The two forms are just another tool in the toolbox; it would be a waste and a loss to keep strictly to only one or the other. As a wise man once said, foolish consistency is a hobgoblin of little minds.

 

[Erozetta]

But writing is abstract. If you're using contractions everywhere, and then all of a sudden you don't, the reader is likely to assume that you're making a distinction for emphasis. Or at least wonder whether you're trying to add an emphasis. It's a tiny thing, but it risks breaking the reader's immersion.

In all the reviews I've read, I don't think I have ever come across one that said anything about inconsistent contraction use. I've seen people point out a lack of contractions(often pointing to it seeming pompous or robotic), or too many contractions (distracting/annoying), but I don't recall anything regarding them being inconsistent, either as a negative or a positive.

It seems like it would be a thing that editors notice, but the average reader couldn't give a shit about.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

Complete absence of contractions worked for Lt Cmdr Data because it had a reason and it was consistent. Use of contractions in conversation is normal. I don't know of anyone who doesn't use them. Switching out for emphasis is also normal. "I won't do it" can easily become "I will not do it" on a case by case basis. I can see a case for a narrator to avoid them, as long as it's consistent and the characters don't also avoid them.

 

[AG31]

I'm sorry I can't remember the countries, but I do believe that avoiding contractions is typical of certain people for whom English isn't a first language.

 

[Britva415]

But writing is abstract. If you're using contractions everywhere, and then all of a sudden you don't, the reader is likely to assume that you're making a distinction for emphasis. Or at least wonder whether you're trying to add an emphasis. It's a tiny thing, but it risks breaking the reader's immersion.

Wouldn't encountering contrived contractions which are only there for the sake of consistency be a lot more distracting than the absence of an overly-rigid consistency?

I can think of at least three, maybe four contractions I could contrive to add to the above sentence for the sake of being consistent with "wouldn't," but I would never add them because it would be contrived and distracting. And I wouldn't say "Would not" for the sake of being consistent with the absence of three or for potential contractions either, because that would also be contrived and distracting.

 

[StillStunned]

Wouldn't encountering contrived contractions which're only there for the sake'f consistency'd be a lot more distracting'n the absence of an overly-rigid consistency?

Sure. If you use one contraction, that means you have to replace every vowel with an apostrophe. That's what I meant.